REWIND

New Delhi, 19 December 2023

Towards Destruction of Parliament

By Inder Jit

(Released on 25 August 1987)

Parliament today faces its biggest ever challenge and crisis. Some of us have deplored its decline over the years. Loud protests have been voiced over repeated assaults on the two Houses and the system itself. But last week saw Parliament under brazen attack. In fact, what came pass has made all those who stand for Parliamentary democracy gravely anxious about its future. On Saturday morning, I exchanged thoughts on the subject with some experts, notably Mr S. L. Shakdher, India's leading authority on Parliament. He candidly said: "Parliamentary democracy provides for Government by discussion and debate -- and for an orderly struggle for power. There is no scope in it for violence and for taking issues to the streets. The system is based on tolerance and a certain willingness on the part of both the Government and the Opposition to give and take. But what happened last week has made a mockery of Parliament. Such occurrences will even sound its death knell. We ignore the development at our peril."

Prof Madhu Dandavate, it may be recalled, gave notice on Monday last week of the following motion: "That this House, while welcoming the announcement by the Chief Public Prosecutor of Sweden to initiate enquiry into the alleged bribes paid by Bofors in the Howitzer deal, urges the Government to lodge a complaint with the Swedish authorities and seek a thorough enquiry". The next day, he also gave notice of an adjournment motion to discuss "the failure of the Union Government to endorse the appeal of more than 100 MPs to the Chief Public Prosecutor of Sweden to enquire into the alleged payment of bribes by Bofors ..." The Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Mr H.K.L. Bhagat, thereupon said that the Government was ready for an immediate discussion on Prof. Dandavate's earlier motion. However, a Muslim League member, Mr G.M. Banatwala, intervened to remind that the House had already agreed to discuss communal disturbances, a subject which had been hanging fire for five weeks. The Speaker, Mr Bal Ram Jakhar, then ruled that communalism was the country's burning issue number one and a discussion on the subject would get precedence.

The matter ended there for the moment and the House took up further discussion of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement. Prof Dandavate and other Opposition MPs concluded from the Speaker's ruling that the motion urging enquiry by the Swedish Public Prosecutor would be up only on Wednesday or later. (The Business Advisory Committee, which is presided over by the Speaker, had decided that communal disturbances be discussed thoroughly the whole of Tuesday and, if necessary, on the next day also.) The discussion on Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement concluded at 4 p.m. whereupon the House took up discussion on communal disturbances. But the discussion had gone on for barely an hour and a half when Mr Bhagwat Jha Azad, Congress-I, proposed out of the blue that the House should take up the two items listed in the supplementary agenda, just circulated. The first item related to Prof Dandavate's motion on Bofors. The second item, moved by Mr Azad, welcomed the Government's efforts to ascertain facts relating to payments made by Bofors and urged the Joint Parliamentary Committee to conduct the probe expeditiously.

Taken greatly by surprise, Prof Dandavate strongly protested against the move as most senior MPs, according to him, had already left for the day. Furthermore, it was wrong to propose discussion of the supplementary agenda without adequate notice when the House was busy holding a serious debate on the communal situation. But Mr Azad and other Congress-I MPs insisted on taking up the supplementary agenda. Pandemonium broke out when Mr Azad went a step further and proposed suspension of rules to push ahead with the discussion. The Opposition again objected. But, to cut a long story short, Mr Azad's proposal was declared carried by the Deputy Speaker, Mr. Thambi Durai, who was in the Chair. Prof. Dandavate was next asked by Mr Durai to move his motion. When the Janata Leader refused to do so on the ground that it was unfair to rush the resolution, Mr Azad moved his motion at 6.25 p.m. amidst shouts and counter shouts. Three minutes later, at 6.28 p.m., according to the Lok Sabha Bulletin, the motion was declared carried by the Deputy Speaker amid continuing din in which nothing could be heard. House adjourned at 6.30 p.m. as the Opposition MPs walked out.

What precisely went wrong? Lots! In the first place, there was no occasion for the supplementary agenda to be sprung upon Prof Dandavate without any prior notice. He should have been spoken to on the subject and his consent taken, in accordance with established practice and convention. Secondly, the Deputy Speaker should never have agreed to let Mr Azad propose suspension of the Rules. True, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker are servants of the House and not its masters. But the Presiding officers also owe a basic responsibility to Parliament as the custodian of Parliamentary privileges. In the circumstances, the Deputy Speaker should have firmly ruled against interrupting the discussion on communal disturbances and permitting the House to take up an important matter without the agreement of the Opposition seeking such a debate. The rules might permit any Member to move for suspension of the rules. But the Deputy Speaker should have taken due note of Prof Dandavate's assertion in the best spirit of Parliamentary democracy: what is admissible under the rules is not necessarily also advisable.

The Speaker did well to sort out matters the following day when he ruled that the House and members should adhere to past conventions and traditions. However, he did not cover himself with glory when he took a technical view and asserted that no rules had been violated in the circulation of the supplementary agenda on Tuesday and in the suspension of the rules on a motion permitted to be moved by the Deputy Speaker. The Speaker must know that what was done went against all conventions and practices designed to ensure harmonious functioning of Parliament, its supremacy and ascendancy. Parliament is sovereign in regard to its functioning, not the rules. In fact, the two Houses have been given the power to suspend rules for a purpose: to ensure their functioning in the best national interest in case the rules are found to come in the way. Incidentally, the Lok Sabha debated on adjournment motions the Teachers Strike in Calcutta in 1954, firing in Bhangi Colony in 1957 and the Assam language riots in 1971 overlooking the rules and procedures. Democracy, it needs to be remembered, is sustained by discussion and debate, not by shutting these out.

Mr Bhagat, too, did well to make gracious amends. He conceded in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday that he should have informed Prof Dandavate earlier in the afternoon that his resolution was coming up for discussion. He also said it was "a lapse" on his part and that he was sorry for the same. Nevertheless, there is need for the ruling party to understand that the arbitrary and dictatorial method used by it to prevent Prof Dandavate’s a motion from being discussed will only push our Parliamentary democracy towards destruction. Every reasonable effort must be made by the ruling party to ensure debate. Heavens would not have fallen if the discussion had been held a day later on Wednesday, as urged by Mr Indrajit Gupta, CPI. At any rate, the ruling party has only hurt itself by clumsily and brazenly blocking Prof. Dandavate’s motion and giving the unfortunate impression that it was opposed to a probe by the Swedish Public Prosecutor. It would have been better for it to have allowed a discussion and to oppose Prof. Dandavate’s potion with arguments. It has also not helped its image by adopting Mr Azad's motion without any discussion.

Not a little bitterness has also been caused among the Opposition for what came to pass on Friday when the ruling party used its majority to "kill" the following resolution moved by Prof Dandavate: The House urges the Government of India to take the people and Parliament into confidence in revealing the details about various defence deals and FERA violations brought out by the recently-published reports and documents and publish a comprehensive White paper on such defence deals and major FERA violations since 1980." The Professor’s resolution was to be taken up after discussion on a resolution on tribal welfare was completed during the day. But the ruling party decided to extend the discussion and suddenly fielded another 30 names, notwithstanding the fact that debate on the subject had gone on for three Fridays, when Private Members' business is taken up. Prof Dandavate promptly said he had no objection to extending the discussion and asked that he be allowed a minute at the end to move his resolution so that it could survive until the next session and not lapse. But the ruling party refused to oblige and the resolution stood scuttled.

Tactics and tricks are no doubt an important part of the Parliamentary game. Either side is entitled to try and catch the other on the wrong foot. Nevertheless, certain basic norms have to be upheld by the Members themselves or, in the last analysis, by the Presiding officers. Every consideration should have been extended to Prof Dandavate in accordance with the spirit and conventions of a healthy democracy. The Deputy Speaker should have ensured that the ruling party did not set up wrong precedents and thereby made a mockery of the system. We would do well to recall what Pandit Pant observed on September 24, 1958. He said: "Everything that is in this House serves as a precedent for the future. The conventions that we build are not only for today or tomorrow, not in respect of any particular Government but also in respect of all that night happen hereafter, whether in this Parliament or in State Legislature or in connection with the relationship between the States and the Centre.” Wise words indeed. We can ignore them only at the cost of Parliament and its future..--- INFA

(Copyright, News and Feature Alliance)